Le rapport de Mme Guidi, présidente, a été entendu au cours de l'audience publique. Considérant ce qui suit : 1.

   On his submission that the Court’s finding of a violation would mean that he should have been acquitted for lack of evidence, the applicant claimed compensation of 150,000 Dutch guilders for

Thus, the former husband’s guilt was not proven and the principle of presumption of innocence was violated.

    An inference from failure to give evidence cannot on its own prove guilt. That is expressly stated in section 38(3) of the Act. 4.

The body composed of the professional judges and the jury now deliberates on the issue of guilt.

  The applicant contends therefore that these courts could not be considered to be impartial within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention when deciding on his guilt.   B.

APPELANT : Monsieur [X] [I] né le 15 Mai 1961 à [Localité 5] [Adresse 4] [Localité 1] Représenté par Me Céline GUILLE de la SELARL CELINE GUILLE, avocat au barreau de NIMES INTIMÉE : S.E.L.A.R.L

case before the Grand Chamber; Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of the Netherlands would pay the applicant, the global sum of 6 302,75 Dutch guilders

application, but court refused to declare experts’ evidence inadmissible, on ground that phrases challenged did not prove that they had prejudged merits of case or expressed their opinion as to defendant’s guilt

Law – Article 6 §   1 and 3   (c): Where an appellate court is called upon to examine a case as to the facts and the law and to make a full assessment of the issue of guilt or innocence it should

The applicant admitted his guilt.

Despite acknowledging his guilt in the robberies, the applicant denied that he had intended to kill the victim.

abolition of the then applicable executive order – as a result of the changed circumstances in Syria after the time of the crime – was based on external factors that had no relevance to the question of guilt

Although it was not for the Court to state its view on the assessment of the applicant’s guilt or the probative value of the statements in issue, it nevertheless observed that the National Security Court

The applicant further complained that having been found ineligible to inherit his late father’s estate due to the declaration of his guilt, his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (Article

/ à Mme Slavka Karabuljevic, domiciliée 20 avenue des Métiers, 27320 Nonancourt, 28 / à Mme Safiye Akman, domiciliée 22 rue de Dampierre, 28350 Saint-Lubin des Joncherets, 29 / à Mme Jocelyne Guillo

Inadmissible under Article 7: The order to demolish the facility had not involved a finding of guilt pursuant to a criminal charge, and therefore did not constitute a “penalty” within the meaning of Article

officers prevented him from seeking damages caused by his ill-treatment as his civil claim would depend on the outcome of the mentioned criminal proceedings and, in particular, on the establishment of guilt

Having regard to the manner in which the courts established the applicant’s guilt, in particular their reliance on factual conclusions from criminal proceedings in which the applicant did not participate